Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Public Service Commission

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 30/06/2019, 8+39 PM
VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 427

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Public Service
Commission
Nos. L-24198 & L-24207-10. December 18, 1968.
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE

COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, respondent.
Public Service Commission; Hearing en banc; Motion for

reconsideration; Where denial of motion for reconsideration without
prior oral arguments thereon was not violative of due process; Case
at bar.·It may be true that the Public Service Act provides for the
hearing of a motion for reconsideration, with proper notice to the
parties (Sec. 34, C.A. 146). However, in the case at bar, the strict
observance of this provision is not now imperative, particularly in
view of the proliferation of cases before the Commission since
Commonwealth Act No. 146 became effective. It may be pointed out
that the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner PLDT
consists of 23 pages, containing a complete discussion of the
grounds, both legal and factual, in support of its stand that the
Commission's order of 23 August 1964 was incorrect and deserved
reconsideration. It quoted portions of the transcript of stenographic
notes of the testimonies of the witnesses, as well as exhibits
presented during the hearing, which were all available to the
members of the Commission for verification. In short, the motion
adequately informed the
_______________
* Editor's Note: See decision in 19 SCRA 858.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ba8626c8b49398b7a003600fb002c009e/p/APL574/?username=Guest Page 1 of 11
428
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commission
Commission en banc of the issues and arguments that petitioner

wanted to be taken up and considered. In the circumstances,
therefore, even assuming that the resolution of the motion without
prior oral argument thereon was not in strict compliance with the
procedure prescribed by law, the same can not be deemed to have
deprived petitioner of his right to due process. In fact, there is no
pretense that had petitioner's motion been heard, additional proof
or argument would be presented that could have affected or
changed the conclusion reached by the Commission en banc. It must
be for the same reason, i.e., absence of material prejudice to the
movant, that in one case (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., v. Barredo, 58
Phil. 385) this Court, although recognizing as irregular the
rendition of a ruling by the Public Service Commission even before
the period granted to the parties within which to file their
respective memoranda had -elapsed, refused to reverse the same,
considering such irregularity insufficient to warrant a reversal or
modification of aforesaid decision, although a strict observance of
procedural rules is eminently desirable, if only to forestall
speculations generally derogatory to the Commission's reputation
(cf. Corrales v. Gonzalez, L29502, Resol. on Motion to Reconsider, 5
December 1968). Additional argument against the stand of the
petitioner is supplied by the fact that the Public Service
Commission, as an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial
powers, is not strictly bound by procedural rules; of course, provided
that no cardinal primary rights to which an individual is entitled
are sacrificed (Serrano ?;. Public Service Commission, L-24165, 30
August 1068; 24 SCRA 867). None have been denied in the present
case.
Same; Appeal; Statement of particular facts expected to be
proved should be made of record; Reason.·The rule is that the
party prejudiced by the court's action, if he desires to make it the
subject of appeal, should state of record the particular facts he
expects to prove by such evidence. Otherwise, no review of such
erroneous action can be had in this Court (Moreta v. Tan Chay, 57

Phil. 432). The reason for the rule is obvious: it would not be
justifiable to set aside a judgment and remand the case for
reception of evidence that might not suffice to induce a conclusion
or lead to a result different from that previously arrived at. For this
purpose, the record must show the nature and import of the
purported evidence.
PETITION for review of certain orders of the Public Service

Commission.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Belo,
Jalandoni & Jamir and Graciano C. Regala for petitioner.
429
VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 429

Commission
Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and

Solicitor Celso P. Ylagan for respondent.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT)

is appealing from two orders of the Public Service
Commission (in PSC Cases Nos. 61-5270, 61-5271, 61-5280,
61-2111 & 62-4169): (1) dated 18 August 1964, directing it
to complete by 25 August 1964 the repair of all telephone
troubles in Manila and suburbs caused by typhoon
"Dading", or by other f actors, and to repair, within five
days after they were reported, all other telephone troubles
that may arise after 20 August 1964, with provision for the
imposition of a daily fine of P50.00 in case of failure to
comply with any of the aforesaid directives; and (2) dated 3
February 1965, denying PLDT's motion for reconsideration
of the first order.
In connection with the numerous complaints received by
the Public Service Commission from telephone subscribers
in Manila and suburbs, about the alleged inadequate,
inefficient and unsatisfactory service and discriminatory

practices of the PLDT in the repair of telephones rendered
out of order by typhoon "Dading", the PLDT was cited to
appear before the Commission on 21 July 1964 to explain
why disciplinary action should not be taken against it.
During; the hearing, it was established that on account
of this typhoon that hit Manila on 29 and 30 June 1964 the
various public utility services sustained extensive damage.
However, while the light and water services had been
restored to almost normal condition, a great number of
telephones remained unusable even a month after the
calamity was over. The PLDT, through its witnesses,
attempted to justify the delay in its repair-jobs by urging
the extent 1
of damage wrought by the typhoon to its f
facilities; the difficulties being encountered in the repair-
_______________
1 According to PLDT's witness, after the storm, they noted initially

240 (main feeder) cable troubles, each one of which still branched into
several others that may also need repair, and these cable troubles put
24,000 telephones out of use (pp. 167, 172-173, 189, t.s.n.).
430

Commission
work;- and the shortage of trained men to do the technical

phase of the work.
For their part, the complainants offered the testimony of
Severo Santiago, President of Republic Telephone
Company, to rebut the declarations of the PLDT witnesses
that the delay in the complete restoration of telephone
outages could not be helped.
On 13 August 1964, the Public Service Commission
ordered the PLDT to complete the repair of telephones still
not functioning, in this tenor:
"WHEREFORE, the PSC hereby grants the PLDT up to August 25,

1964 to complete the repairs of all telephone troubles in Manila and
suburbs which may be out-of-order as a result of typhoon Dading or

for any other cause. After August 25, 1964, PLDT will pay a fine of
Fifty Pesos (P50.00) per day, for any telephone trouble or troubles
existing prior to August 20, 1964 and remaining unrepaired until
such repair is completed. And for other telephone troubles arising
and reported to PLDT after said date, said COMPANY is required
to effect the necessary repairs within five (5) days, from the date of
such report, and in case of failure to do so, PLDT will pay the same
penalty of P50.00 per day, until such repair is completed."
The directive was based on the Commission's findings that

·
''The evidence of the PLDT consisting of numerous plans, charts,

sample cables, lead, etc. tend to establish that the damage caused
by typhoon Dading on June 30, 1964 was too extensive and that
PLDT did not have enough trained splicers and trained technical
men to complete the work at once. Such explanation is not
altogether sufficient or satisfactory. While we realize the
predicament of PLDT, it is our considered opinion that the much
needed repairs could have been completed by this time. As a matter
of fact, when this incident was called for hearing on July 21, 1964,
PLDT informed the Commission that about eighty per cent of the
work needed was already finished,
_______________
2 Among the difficulties mentioned were the lack of trained men to do

technical work, such as the splicing of cables; the impossibility of pumping out
manholes in areas under water, the reluctance of city authorities to allow
excavation in busy streets, except at night (pages 177-178, t.s.n.); and
pilferages of the company's cables and wires to be used in the repair work
(pages 168-169, t.s.n.).
431
VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 431

Commission
and PLDT expected to finish all the repairs on the early part of
August, not beyond August 5, 1964. So much so, that the
Commission suggested (to) the parties that a stipulation to that
effect be submitted but the stipulation was not formally carried out.
And if eighty per cent of the work was finished before July 21, 1964
when this incident was first called for hearing as affirmed by PLDT,
there is no reason at all, why the remaining twenty percent was not
finished up to August 5, 1964. Mr. Severo Santiago, a consulting
telephone engineer since 1954, and presently the President of
Republic Telephone Company, who testified as an expert witness in
this case, maintained that in his opinion the damages caused by the
typhoon to PLDT could have been repaired in thirty (30) days. Mr.
Santiago explained that in the absence of sufficient technical and
trained or skilled workers, PLDT should have sought the
cooperation of other telephone systems, either directly or thru the
intervention of the PSC or other agencies of the Government. The
Telecom, the Army, the Republic Telephone Company, and many
other public utilities would have been too glad to extend their
cooperation and to establish a system of mutual help, for the benefit
of all, and particularly for the advantage of the general public. If
the PLDT was able to finish 80% of the work, up to July 21, 1964
without assistance from anyone, had the PLDT solicited the help
and cooperation of other utilities, instead of 80% the entire damage
could have been repaired, at a very much earlier date.
"According to PLDT, at present there are only 1,360 cable
troubles representing same number of telephones (except where
there are party lines), remaining unrepaired. Said cable troubles
should be repaired and finished without any unnecessary dela. The
Commission is willing to be liberal with the PLDT provided all
repairs are fully completed 011 or before August 25. 1904."
Against this order, the PLDT filed a 23-page motion for

reconsideration, adducing therein its grounds and reasons
in support of the same. The motion was set for hearing on 1
September 1964; then, .at the instance of movant, it was
moved to 4 September 1964. On this latter date. however,
the Commission was not able to hear the motion, for lack of
the necessary quorum (page 5, Petitioner's brief). On 3
February 1965, an order was issued in the cases, signed by
six members of the Commission denying PLDT's motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit. The PLDT then filed the
present petition for roview.
Petitioner PLDT assigns as first error allegedly
committed by the respondent Public Service Commission
the
432

Commission
denial of its motion for reconsideration before it could be

heard by that body. It is claimed that, pursuant to Section 3
of the Public Service Act, as amended by Republic Act
2677, a hearing en banc of a motion for reconsideration of
an order or decision of the Commission is mandatory, non-
observance of which constitutes reversible error.
We do not agree to the proposition. It may be true that
the Public Service Act provides for the hearing of a motion3
for reconsideration, with proper notices to the parties.
However, the strict observance of this provision in these
cases is not now imperative, particularly in view of the
proliferation of cases before the Commission since
Commonwealth Act No. 146 became effective. It may be
pointed out that the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner PLDT consists of 23 pages, containing a complete
discussion of the grounds, both legal and factual. in support
of its stand that the Commission's order of 23 August 1964
was incorrect and deserved reconsideration. It quoted
portions of the transcript of stenographic notes of the
testimonies of the witnesses, as well as exhibits presented
during the hearing, which were all available to the
members of the Commission for verification. In short, the
motion adequately informed the Commission en banc of the
issues and arguments that petitioner wanted to be taken
up and considered. In the circumstances, therefore, even
assuming that the resolution of the motion
_______________
3 Section 34 of Commonwealth Act 146 provides: "SEC. 34. Any

interested party may request the reconsideration of any order, ruling or
decision of the Commission by means of a petition filed not later than
fifteen days after the date of the notice of the order, ruling or decision in
question. The grounds on which the request for reconsideration is based
shall be clearly and specifically stated in the petition. Copies of said
petition shall be served on all parties interested in the matter. It shall be

the duty of the Commission to call a hearing on said petition
immediately, with notice to the parties, and after hearing to decide the
same promptly, either denying the netition or revoking Or modifying the
order, ruling or decision under consideration." (See also Marinduque
Trans. Co. vs. Public Service Commission, L-18528, 31 July 1963.)
433
VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 433

Commission
without prior oral argument thereon was not in strict

compliance with the procedure prescribed by law, the same
can not be deemed to have deprived petitioner of his right
to due process. In fact, there is no pretense that had
petitioner's motion been heard additional proof or
argument would be presented that could have affected or
changed the conclusion reached by the Commission en
banc. It must be for the same reason, i.e., absence 4
of
material prejudice to the movant, that in one case this
Court, although recognizing as irregular the rendition of a
ruling by the Public Service Commission even before the
period granted to the parties within which to file their
respective memoranda had elapsed, refused to reverse the
same, considering such irregularity insufficient to warrant
a reversal or modification of the aforesaid decision,
although a strict observance of procedural rules is
eminently desirable, if only to forestall speculations
generally derogatory to the Commission's reputation (cf.
Corrales vs. Gonzales, L-29502, Resol. on Motion to
Reconsider, 5 December 1968). Additional argument
against the stand of the petitioner is supplied by the fact
that the Public Service Commission, as an administrative
body exercising quasi-judicial powers, is not strictly bound
by procedural rules; of course provided that no cardinal
primary rights
5
to which an individual is entitled are
sacrificed. None have been denied in the present case.
Petitioner next contests the findings of fact made by the
hearing Commissioner, alleging that they are not
supported by substantial evidence. There is further

insinuation of arbitrariness on the part of the hearing
Commissioner, in that petitioner was supposedly prevented
from proving its defense that everything possible was done
by the telephone company to repair the damage to its
facilities at a much shorter time.
There is no merit to the allegation. The Commission's
conclusion, that all of the 24,000 telephones affected by
_______________
4 Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. vs. Barredo, 58 Phil. 385.

5 Serrano vs. Public Service Commission, L-24165, 30 August 1968, 24
SCRA 867.
434

Commission
the cable troubles caused by the typhoon of 29 and 30 June

1964 could have been repaired much earlier than 25
August 1964, is not without basis. For petitioner's own
witness declared that as of 4 August 1964, about 85 to 90%
of the repair-work had already been accomplished, 6
with
only some 92 smaller cables remaining unrepaired; that as
of 7 August 1964, only 4 cables with trouble
7
and affecting
107 telephones had to be worked on. Since, according to
this same witness, there
8
were 175 crews or 645 men
detailed on the job, rendering service9 daily including
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the order of the
Commission to finish the repair of the damage caused by
the typhoon by 25 August 1964 is reasonable and justified.
The fact remains that as between 21 July and 25 August no
effort appear to have been exerted to enlist available
outside technical help in order to relieve promptly the
inconvenience to petitioner's subscribers.
That the hearing Commissioner was recorded to have
uttered remarks indicating impatience with the slow-pace
in which petitioner's evidence was being presented does not
necessarily show unfairness .and arbitrariness. On the
contrary, throughout the 265 pages of the transcript

covered by the testimonies of petitioner's expert witnesses,
the ef f ort is apparent on the part of the Commissioner to
appreciate the details of the damage suffered by the
telephone company and of the measures being adopted to
accomplish quick restoration of the system to normalcy. At
any rate, assuming that petitioner had other evidence to
present but was not allowed to do so, the rule is that the
party prejudiced by the court's action, if he desires to make
it the subject of appeal, should state of record the
particular facts he expects to prove by such evidence,
Otherwise, no review of such erroneous action can be had
in this Court (Moreta vs. Tan Chay, 57 Phil. 432). The
reason for the rule is obvious: it would not be justifiable to
set aside a judgment and remand the case for reception
_______________
6 Pages 161-162, t.s.n.

7 Page 247, t.s.n.
8 Pages 262-263, t.s.n.
9 Page 163, t.s.n.
435
VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 435

United Restauror's Employees & Labor Union vs. Torres
of evidence that might not suffice to induce a conclusion or

lead to a result different from that previously arrived at.
For this purpose, the record must show the nature and
import of the purported evidence. Petitioner failed to
observe this rule.
As regards that portion of the order imposing a fine of
P50.00 a day in case of petitioner's failure to repair within
five days after it has been reported, petitioner argues that
the same was arbitrary, since it subjected petitioner to
liability even f or disruptions of service caused by other and
subsequent fortuitous events. Such argument is fallacious,
for there is nothing on record to sustain the thesis that the
PSC intended the questioned order to cover situations not
due to, or connected with, typhoon "Dading". Furthermore,
the argument proceeds upon pure hypothesis, since there is

no proof that any of the fortuitous events envisaged by
petitioner ever occurred. It is not the function of a
reviewing court to speculate upon anticipated possibilities
that have never jelled into reality; nor is it its duty to place
unreasonable constructions upon orders brought up for its
revision in order to overturn them.
WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are hereby
affirmed. Costs are taxed against the petitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,

Sanchez, Castro, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Orders affirmed.
Note.·With respect to the nature of the PSC and the

finality of its factual findings, see Serrano vs. Public
Service Commission, L-24165, Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 867,
and the notes thereunder. See also the notes under Alatco
Transportation, Inc. vs. Rosalio S. Bonete, Jr., L-25078,
Dec. 24, 1968, post.
__________________
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Public Service Commission

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Public Service Commission

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 026 30/06/2019, 8+39 PM

VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 427

Nos. L-24198 & L-24207-10. December 18, 1968.

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE

Public Service Commission; Hearing en banc; Motion for

* Editor's Note: See decision in 19 SCRA 858.

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Public Service

Commission en banc of the issues and arguments that petitioner

erroneous action can be had in this Court (Moreta v. Tan Chay, 57

PETITION for review of certain orders of the Public Service

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 429

Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT)

inefficient and unsatisfactory service and discriminatory

1 According to PLDT's witness, after the storm, they noted initially

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

work;- and the shortage of trained men to do the technical

"WHEREFORE, the PSC hereby grants the PLDT up to August 25,

suburbs which may be out-of-order as a result of typhoon Dading or

The directive was based on the Commission's findings that

''The evidence of the PLDT consisting of numerous plans, charts,

2 Among the difficulties mentioned were the lack of trained men to do

VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 431

Against this order, the PLDT filed a 23-page motion for

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

denial of its motion for reconsideration before it could be

3 Section 34 of Commonwealth Act 146 provides: "SEC. 34. Any

petition shall be served on all parties interested in the matter. It shall be

VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 433

without prior oral argument thereon was not in strict

supported by substantial evidence. There is further

4 Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. vs. Barredo, 58 Phil. 385.

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the cable troubles caused by the typhoon of 29 and 30 June

contrary, throughout the 265 pages of the transcript

6 Pages 161-162, t.s.n.

VOL. 26, DECEMBER 18, 1968 435

of evidence that might not suffice to induce a conclusion or

the argument proceeds upon pure hypothesis, since there is

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,

Note.·With respect to the nature of the PSC and the

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi